Asra Bano vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 2952 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                           Judgment Reserved on: July 28, 2009
                           Judgment Delivered on: July 31, 2009


+                          CRL.A.316/2001


       ASRA BANO                            ..... Appellant
               Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi,, Advocate.


                           versus


       STATE                                ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
     allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?            Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                Yes


INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. On 1.7.1996 in the afternoon at about 3 PM, the

appellant Asra Bano had gone to chamber No.104 of

Sh.B.T.Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor PW-17 in the

High Court and informed him that she had killed her

husband Raju; at that time she was carrying a packet

containing the severed private parts of her deceased

husband.

2. Sh.B.T.Singh immediately called up his Naib Court HC

Ved Prakash PW-14 and passed on this information to him

who in turn rang up the concerned police station i.e. police

station Sarojini Nagar. The said information was recorded in

D.D.No.24-A Ex.PW-7/B; copy of the same was handed over

to the Additional SHO Smt. Kamlesh Kumari PW-18.

3. On receipt thereof PW-18 along with SI Karuna Sagar

PW-11 and Const.Samar Singh PW-8 reached chamber

No.104 of the Delhi High Court where they met PW-14; the

appellant Asra Bano was also sitting there. PW-14 informed

the police party that the lady sitting along with him, namely,

Asra Bano had disclosed to him that she had murdered her

husband; she had first disclosed this fact to PW-17 who in

turn had informed him about the same; the appellant at that

time was holding a white coloured plastic bag in which

besides the private parts of her husband, a pink coloured

chunni, some envelopes and photographs and a strip of

Nitravet tablets were found.

4. Statement of PW-14 Ex.PW-18/A was recorded which

formed the basis of the rukka; it was endorsed by PW-18 and

sent to the Police Station Sarojini Nagar through PW-8,

pursuant to which the formal FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered

by HC Harish Kumar PW-7.

5. Investigation commenced. The polythene packet found

in the hand of the appellant was checked and three separate

pulandas of the same were prepared; the private parts of the

deceased were kept in one packet, the pink coloured chunni

and the photographs were sealed in a second packet and the

tablets/wrapper of the Nitravet tablets were seized and

sealed in third packet. They were collectively taken into

possession vide memo Ex.PW-11/B.

6. The police party headed by PW-18 reached the spot

i.e. Jhuggi No. 70, Indira Camp, Safdarjung Hospital, New

Delhi along with the appellant. The appellant opened the

door of the jhuggi and inside on the mat a dead body was

lying which was covered with a red coloured chunni; on

lifting the chunni it was noted that the dead body was

clothed only in a vest and underwear and on removal of the

underwear it was further noted that genitals of the male

body were missing. The appellant handed over a blood

stained knife lying near the dead body to PW-18, sketch of

the same was prepared vide memo Ex.PW-11/D and the said

knife was sealed in a pulanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW-

11/E.

7. Crime team was summoned which was headed by SI

Nirmal Singh who accompanied by Ct. Suraj Mal PW-2

summoned the photographers to the site. Vijay Kumar PW-4

took 12-13 photographs of the scene of the crime from

different angles noting that the male organ of the dead body

was missing from the dead body; the positives of the

photographs are Ex.PW-4/A-14 and the negatives are Ex.PW-

4/15 to 17; two blurred photographs are Ex.PW-4/18-19.

Sudesh Kumar PW-3 videographed the scene of the

occurrence and the video cassette was proved as Ex.P-1.

Rough site plan along with marginal notes was prepared

vide memo Ex.PW-18/C and thereafter the site plan to scale

Ex.PW-5/A was prepared by SI Madan Pal PW-5.

8. The appellant, who was present at the spot was

arrested vide memo Ex.PW-11/A. Inquest proceedings were

conducted separately. The neighbour in the vicinity i.e.

Islamuddin PW-13 on inquiry informed the police that the

Jhuggi No.70 belonged to the appellant Asra Bano. Apart

from his statement, the statement of Shri Prakash PW-15

Pradhan of the village was also recorded and he had also

joined the investigation at the time when the police party

had reached the spot.

9. The dead body was sent to the mortuary for

preservation. Post mortem of the same was conducted by

PW-10 Dr. Alexander on 4.7.1996 who vide report

Ex.PW10/A had noted the following external injuries;

"External Injuries

1. Ligature mark was very faint abraded Parchmantised and dry completely and circling the neck just blow the thyroid cartilage. Size of the ligature mark was 30 cm x 3.6 cm. Distance from the infra mandibular margin to the ligature mark was 6 cm. Distance from the left and right outer angle of mandible from the ligature mark was 7.2 cm and 7 cm respectively.

2. On diasaction over the ligature mark tissue underneath the ligature mark was glistening white subcutaneous extravasation of blood underneath the ligature mark which was more prominent on the front of the neck. There was bruising of the neck muscle bilaterally. There was also a fracture of the left side superior horn of the thyroid cartilage which surrounding extravasation of blood. Hyoid and cricoids cartilade and tracheal rings over normal and intact. Neck blood vessels and cervical vertebrae were normal and intact.

3. The external genitalia had been amputated by a giving a transverse incision on this suprapugic region of size 15.5 cm, and thereby extending it towards and anus bilaterally to the midline and thereby reflecting the incised skin till the scrotum along with both the testes which had been separated from the body and root of penis was reached. The penis had subsequently been imputated leaving behind the stump of length 3.2 cm and diameter 2.5 cm. attached to the body. All the

margins of the wounds were clean cut even not sollen with minimal bleedings and no sign of inflammation. The imputated stump of penis alongwith the scrotum and both the testes were also examined and found to be maching anatomically and is size with the wound."

10. The opinion on the cause of death was asphyxia and

cerebral congestion caused by ante mortem strangulation by

a soft ligature material on the neck which is sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No.3 was

opined to be a post mortem injury and caused by a sharp

edged weapon or object. Viscera of the deceased had been

preserved for further analysis. On the same day i.e.

4.7.1996, PW-10 had given his subsequent opinion on the

ligature material i.e. the blood stained pink coloured chunni

which had been sent to him for examination and on

examining the same he had opined that the said ligature

material sent to him was strong enough to be used for

strangulation and the ligature marks correspond to injury

no.1 on the deceased as mentioned in his report Ex.PW-10/A.

PW-10 had further opined that the blood stained knife which

had been sent to him for examination, on its examination

revealed that injury no.3 as mentioned in Ex.PW-10/A could

have been inflicted by said submitted weapon or a weapon

similar to it. This opinion was endorsed by PW-10 on his

report Ex.PW-10/C.

11. The dead body of the deceased had been identified by

his brother Bishram PW-1.

12. Gore Lal has been examined by the prosecution as PW-

16. As per his version his daughter Rajni had been married

to the deceased Raju alias Devi Parshad about four years ago

i.e. in the year 1996 and he had learnt that Raju had been

murdered by a lady. PW-16 had also identified the dead

body of the deceased.

13. On 16.7.1996 the Central Forensic Laboratory had

received 11 exhibits of this case which included the blood

sample of the deceased, his vest and underwear as also the

weapons of offence i.e. the pink coloured chunni and the

knife. The serologist vide his reports Ex.PW-18/M, Ex.PW-

18/N and Ex.PW-18/O had detected human blood on all the

said exhibits which was of B origin.

14. PW-18 had recorded two disclosure statements of the

appellant. The first disclosure statement was recorded on

2.7.1996 and the subsequent disclosure statement of the

appellant was recorded on 4.7.1996. It was pursuant to the

second disclosure statement of the appellant that the role of

the co-accused Khalil had been unravelled. As per the

version of the appellant, the co-accused Khalil had

purchased Nitravet tablets from the store of Anil Jain PW-6

which had been administered to the deceased and after he

had become unconscious; the appellant and the co-accused

Khalil had strangulated him to death.

15. Co-accused Khalil was arrested on 4.7.2009 vide memo

Ex.PW-11/J.

16. The trial court vide its impugned judgment dated

9.3.2001 held the appellant Asra Bano guilty of offence

under Section 302 of the IPC but having given benefit of

doubt to co-accused Khalil, he had been acquitted.

17. On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the

extra judicial confession relied upon by the trial court

besides being a weak kind of evidence even otherwise

suffers from a severe infirmity. The incident had occurred

on 1.7.1996 and as per the version of the prosecution, the

extra judicial confession had been made by the appellant to

B.T.Singh PW-17 on the afternoon of the same day itself i.e.

on 1.7.1996. Attention has been drawn to the testimony of

PW-18 the Investigating Officer who has in his cross-

examination admitted that he had recorded the statement of

PW-17 B.T.Singh on 25.9.1996 i.e. after a gap of almost

three months for which there is no explanation and doubt is,

thus, cast upon the version of the prosecution as to whether

this version of B.T.Singh is in fact correct or not. It is

argued that the statement of PW-14 HC Ved Prakash cannot

be read as an extra judicial confession as even presuming

that the appellant had disclosed her role in the crime to him,

such a statement, if any, given by the appellant to PW-14

would be hit by the bar of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence

Act being a confession before a police officer. It is argued

that the post-mortem report has opined the cause of death as

asphyxia and injury no.3 that is the severing of the private

parts of the deceased was admittedly a post-mortem injury;

even if it is assumed that the appellant was carrying the

private parts of her deceased husband, there is nothing to

connect the appellant with the act of his murder as death in

this case was not because of the cutting of the private parts

of the deceased but because of asphyxia. Appellant could not

have been roped in for this offence. Attention has been

drawn to the cross-examination of PW-18 wherein he had

admitted that he had not collected any papers to

substantiate the version of the prosecution that jhuggi no.70

in fact belonged to the appellant or not. Attention has also

been drawn to the version of PW-4 Vijay Kumar, PW-8

Cont.Samar Singh, PW-11 SI Karuna Sagar, PW-12

Islamuddin, PW-15 Shri Prakash, all of whom have given

different versions on the manner in which the jhuggi was

opened by the appellant when she had led the police party

there; whether the jhuggi had been unlocked by a key or

whether it was already in an unlocked condition is not clear;

there is no explanation as to why the key and the lock had

not been seized by the Investigating Officer. Learned

defence counsel has also drawn the attention of the court to

the version of PW-9 HC Girish Prashad, the then MHC(M) at

police station Sarojini Nagar. It is argued that the exhibits

i.e. the weapons of offence; chunni and the knife had been

sent to PW-10 on 4.7.1996 but there is no corresponding

entry of withdrawal in register No.19 which dents the

veracity of a fair investigation. All these cumulative factors

entitle the appellant to benefit of doubt and a consequent

acquittal.

18. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence.

There is no eye-witness account.

19. The first circumstance as elicited by the prosecution is

the extra judicial confession made by the appellant Asra

Bano to B.T.Singh who had been examined as PW-17. There

is no doubt that the statement of PW-17 had been recorded

after a gap of almost three months by the Investigating

Officer which is a lapse on his part, but at the same time

non-recording of the statement of B.T.Singh at an earlier

date does not prejudice the case of the appellant.

20. PW-17 B.T.Singh has, on oath, deposed that on

1.7.1996 at about 3 P.M., an unknown lady who had

disclosed her name as Asra Bano had come to his chamber in

the High Court where he was working as an Additional

Public Prosecutor. She informed him that she had killed her

husband Raju and she was carrying his private parts. This

information was immediately transmitted by PW-17 to his

Naib Court who was stationed in the chamber of the

standing counsel i.e. chamber no.437 of the High Court. In

cross-examination PW-17 has admitted that no recovery had

been effected in his presence and this lady was not known to

him earlier.

21. Reliance by learned defence counsel on the proposition

as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kishore Chand v.

State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 SCC (Cri) 172 is not in

dispute. There is no doubt that an extra judicial confession

must satisfy the requirements of Section 24 to 26 of the

Evidence Act and it has to be construed strictly. Such a

piece of evidence must be voluntary and has to be proved

like any other fact. However, the mere fact that the

appellant had chosen to make this extra judicial confession

in presence of a person not specially known to her would not

discredit this version. PW-17 was admittedly working as

public servant in his capacity as an Additional Public

Prosecutor in the High Court. Nothing is emanating from

the record as to why the appellant had particularly chosen

PW-17 as her confidant but at the same time there is no

reason to doubt the version of PW-17 on this score; why

would he falsely incriminate the appellant? He was an

Additional Public Prosecutor at the relevant time holding an

office of high responsibility, also being a person of authority,

well versed with angles of criminal law, these factors might

well have weighed in the mind of the appellant when she

chose to repose her trust in him, even otherwise no

suggestion has also been given to PW-17 that he was nursing

any motive or ulterior reason to falsely involve the appellant.

22. The judgments relied upon by the defence counsel and

as reported in Rahim Beg and Another vs. State of U.P. 1972

SCC (crl.) 827 and Lakhanpal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

1979 SCC (crl.) 644 where an extra judicial confession made

by an accused to an unknown person were not relied upon

are both distinct on their own facts. In the first case, there

were two pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution,

an extra judicial confession and recovery of certain articles;

both the circumstances were disbelieved and the Supreme

Court had rejected the extra judicial confession as besides

the fact that the two persons to whom it was made were

strangers of another village, the fact that thereafter on

seeing the police the accused persons had fled away was the

additional circumstance which had weighed in the mind of

the Court to reject this piece of evidence. In the second case

an obiter observation had been made by the Court that it

would be difficult to believe that confession could be made

to person not known to that person at all; in the absence of

motive and there being no other evidence, the extra judicial

confession had not been believed.

23. In the instant case this piece of evidence i.e. the extra

judicial confession has to be tested upon the veracity of the

witness to whom it is made, the time and place of making it,

the circumstances in which it came to be made and the

actual words used by the appellant. In our view, there

appears to be no improper or co-lateral consideration on the

part of PW-17 to make his version suspect; his testimony in

fact inspires confidence. This statement is also not hit by the

bar of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act; it is a

confession made to an independent public person and not

while the appellant was in the custody of a police officer.

24. PW-17 had forthwith passed on this piece of information

to PW-14, who in turn had informed the concerned police

station i.e. police station Sarojini Nagar. PW-14 had then

reached chamber no. 104 of B.T.Singh where he had found

the appellant sitting and she disclosed to him that she had

murdered her husband. The appellant was carrying a plastic

bag which contained the amputated private parts of her

deceased husband as also a pink coloured chunni, some

documents which included some photographs and envelopes

and a patta of Nitravet tablets. In his cross-examination, it

has been reiterated by PW-14 that the appellant had told him

that she had committed the murder of her husband by

chopping off his male organ.

25. In this context, the argument of the learned defence

counsel that the confession by the appellant to PW-14 is hit

by the bar of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act has

force; this statement of the appellant to PW-14 cannot be

read as an extra judicial confession; it being a pure

confession to a police officer, the same has to be excluded.

26. Statement of PW-14 Ex.PW-18/A had formed the basis

of the rukka pursuant to which the present FIR had been

registered; it was recorded as early as at 7.45 P.M. on

1.7.1996 and has detailed the entire version of the

prosecution including the factum of an extra judicial

confession having been made by the appellant to PW-17

wherein she had disclosed that she had murdered her

husband and was carrying his private parts with her. In

these circumstances, even if the statement of PW-18

B.T.Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer after a

delayed period, it would not affect the merits of the

investigation.

27. PW-4, PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-15 and PW-18 had

joined the investigation when the appellant had led the

police party to jhuggi no.70. PW-17 Islamuddin, the pradhan

of jhuggi cluster of Indira Camp had deposed that he had

informed police that this jhuggi i.e. jhuggi no.70 belonged to

the appellant Asra Bano. PW-15 Shri Prakash has also

deposed that the police party had taken the appellant to her

jhuggi. Both these witnesses have deposed that this jhuggi

where the dead body of the deceased was lying belonged to

the appellant Asra Bano; in these circumstances the

admission of PW-18 that he had not collected any papers

relating to the ownership of the jhuggi of the appellant is of

little relevance.

28. A perusal of the version of the aforesaid witnesses i.e.

PWs 4, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 18 further show that there is no

discrepancy in their versions on the manner in which the

entry was effected into the jhuggi when the police party

reached there.

29. PW-4 has stated that the police party had been led by

the appellant to her jhuggi where she had opened lock of the

same. PW-8 is silent on the score i.e. as to whether the

jhuggi was in a locked or an unlocked state. PW-11 in his

cross examination has admitted that Asra Bano on the asking

of the investigating officer had opened the lock of the jhuggi

by pushing the same outwards. PW-12 has deposed that

the door of the jhuggi was closed but not locked. PW-15 has

also deposed that the jhuggi was locked and was opened by

the appellant in his presence. To the same effect is the

version of the Investigating Officer PW-18 who has on oath

stated that the jhuggi was unlocked by Asra Bano.

30. It is clear from the reading of these testimonies that

there is no discrepancy in any of these statements; the

jhuggi was lying closed and it had been unlocked by the

appellant in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses; PW-8

has not specified as to whether the jhuggi was in a locked or

unlocked state; PW-12 is the only person who had stated that

the door of the jhuggi was lying closed and not locked. This

is no discrepancy or contradiction which is material from

which the appellant can draw any support; merely because

the key and the lock of the jhuggi had not been seized by the

investigating officer is also of little relevance.

31. All these witnesses have corroborated one and another

on the point that the appellant Asra Bano was present at the

spot i.e. in jhuggi no.70 along with the investigative team at

the time when they first saw the dead body of Raju lying in

this jhuggi which is the jhuggi of the appellant.

32. The dead body was covered with a red coloured chunni.

This also answers the query of the appellant that although

there were two chunnis, there is no confusion on this score.

The weapon of offence was the pink coloured chunni which

had been taken by the appellant to the chamber of PW-17

when she had made her extra judicial confession to him; the

same had seized and sealed on the same date itself i.e.

1.7.1996 and it was the same blood stained chunni which

had been sent to CFSL for its subsequent opinion who had

opined blood group B on the same which was also the blood

group of the deceased. PW-10 Dr. Alexander who had

conducted the post mortem of the deceased vide his

subsequent opinion Ex.PW10/B had opined that injury no.1

as noted in his post mortem could have been produced by

the said chunni or a cloth similar to it.

33. The blood stained knife had been taken into possession

by PW-18 from the spot at the pointing out of the appellant

vide memo Ex.PW-14/E in the presence of public witnesses

PW-12 and PW-15 both of whom have corroborated this

seizure. This weapon had been sent to the CFSL for analysis

which had opined that the blood stains on the said knife

contained blood group B which was the blood group of the

deceased. PW-10 vide his subsequent report Ex.PW-10/C had

further opined that this knife could have been the weapon

used to sever the private parts of the deceased.

34. The post mortem of the deceased had opined the cause

of death as asphyxia. Although injury no.3 was a post

mortem injury but the factum of the physical possession of

the private parts of the deceased by the appellant and the

corroboration of the investigation on the spot that in fact the

male genitalia of Raju was missing from his dead body and

the place of the dead body having been pointed out and led

to by the appellant herself; opinion of the doctor that the

amputated stump of the penis along with the scrotum and

the testes matching anatomically in size with the wound of

the deceased establish that the nature and manner of the

crime was fully within the knowledge of the appellant. Her

role in the offence has thus been etched out by herself; she

knew the manner in which she had perpetrated the crime.

Argument of the learned defence counsel that she could not

be connected with the murder is thus of little value.

35. PW-9 was the then MHC(M) who had produced the

entries of register no.19.

36. As per the prosecution, the weapons of offence i.e. the

chunni and the knife had been sent to PW-10 for opinion on

4.7.1996; admittedly there is no entry of withdrawal of any

exhibit from the malkhana on the said date but no cross-

examination of PW-9 has been effected on this score. PW-10

Dr.Alexander, on the other hand, has categorically deposed

that vide his reports Ex.PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C he had

given his opinion on these weapons of offence which had

been received by him on 4.7.1996. No cross examination of

this witness has also been effected. This version of PW-10

was corroborated by the version of PW-18; it is thus

established that on 4.7.1996 the weapons of offence had

been sent to PW-10 for his expert opinion.

37. The motive of the crime to some extent can be detected

from the statement of PW-16, the father-in-law of the

deceased Raju, who had deposed that his daughter Rajni had

been married to deceased Raju about four years ago i.e.

sometime in the year 1996 and he came to know that Raju

had subsequently been murdered by one lady. This has also

been corroborated by PW-1 brother of the deceased who has

deposed that Raju had been married one year ago with a girl

of their village. From the version of PW-1 and PW-6 it is

apparent that Rajni had got married to Raju sometime in

June 1996. This offence is of 1.7.1996. It appears that

appellant could not accept the fact that Raju had married

another lady which could be probablized as the reason for

the appellant to vent her vengeance against him.

38. Co-accused Khalil has been given benefit of doubt and

he had been acquitted by the trial court. The main reason

for his acquittal was that PW-6, the chemist from whom the

co-accused had apparently purchased the Nitravet tablets

could not identify the co-accused. In these circumstances,

co-accused Khalil had been given benefit of doubt.

39. It is argued that the co-accused having been given

benefit of doubt, by applying the same corollary, appellant is

also entitled to benefit of doubt. This argument has been

centered on the submission that assuming that asphyxia was

the cause of death of the deceased, the act of his

strangulation could not be the handiwork of a single lady

even presuming that she is strong and able-bodied; in the

absence of the prosecution having been able to establish the

role of the co-accused, appellant is also entitled to a benefit

of doubt on this score.

40. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that the

powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with evidence are

as wide as that of the trial court; as the final court of fact, it

has the duty to examine the evidence and arrive at its own

conclusion; the Appellate Court in fact has to reappraise the

evidence. The Appellant Court is not debarred from

considering indirectly the case against the accused who has

been acquitted and may come to the conclusion that the

evidence against him was also good; however, in the absence

of any appeal against an acquittal against such an accused,

the acquittal order cannot be interfered with but the finding

is nevertheless relevant in invoking against the convicted

appellant his constructive criminality.

41. In the instant case, it had been established by the

prosecution that the shirt of Khalil which had been

recovered at his instance had detected blood group B on it

which was also the blood group of the deceased; the clothes

of co-accused Asra Bano had also been got recovered by

Khalil from his jhuggi and which had been taken into

possession vide memo Ex.PW11/L. PW-6 although hostile on

the identity of Khalil had admitted that the cash memo of his

shop Ex.PW-6/B bore the name of Khalil as the purchaser of

a strip of Nitravet tablets on 30.6.1996. The appellant had

also made a disclosure statement indicting the co-accused

which is a relevant fact under the provisions of Section 30 of

the Evidence Act. These pieces of evidence which had been

built up against co-accused do show his involvement in the

crime. The effect of this is not to reverse the order of

acquittal or to foisten the acquitted co-accused with criminal

liability but nonetheless these circumstances can be kept in

mind by this court to return a finding that the appellant had

been assisted by another in the commission of the crime i.e.

in the act of strangulation of her deceased husband.

42. In our view the prosecution has been able to establish:

(i) Appellant had made a voluntary and unambiguous extra judicial confession to PW-17 on 1.7.1996.

(ii) At that time she was carrying the amputated private parts of her husband and a pink coloured chunni.

(iii) Rukka was dispatched on the same day which contained all this information.

(iv) On the same day, appellant had led the police party to her jhuggi.

(v) On opening the jhuggi dead body of Raju was found lying and his private parts were missing.

(vi) Anatomical examination of the private parts matched the size of the wound of the deceased.

(vii) Blood stained knife was seized at the pointing out of the appellant.

(viii) Chunni and knife were opined to be the cause of strangulation and severance of the genitalia of the deceased respectively.

(ix) Chunni and knife were stained with blood group B which was the blood group of the deceased.

(x) Deceased, about one month ago, had married Rajni when he was already married to the appellant.

43. It was all these cumulative factors which had rested in

the mind of the Trial Judge to return a finding of guilt

against the appellant Asra Bano.

44. In our view, there is no infirmity in this finding; all the

links in the chain have been closely interwoven and

unerringly point fingers of guilt at the appellant. The appeal

is without any merit. It is dismissed.

(INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

July 31, 2009 rb